rcrocket wrote:OK. So the unanimous opinion from this Board is that the Church should not publish its history.
Gee, I've been following this Board for over a year now and all I read is demands that the Church publish its history. You guys are really twits. Posting anonymously, I guess you can say whatever you want.
rcrocket
The church has been publishing its brand of history since its inception. If they can't get that right, what makes you think they will wake up one day and start publishing the bad stuff too?
PS: its mostly bad stuff.
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning
rcrocket wrote:OK. So the unanimous opinion from this Board is that the Church should not publish its history.
Gee, I've been following this Board for over a year now and all I read is demands that the Church publish its history. You guys are really twits. Posting anonymously, I guess you can say whatever you want.
rcrocket
Bob,
Of course the church should publish its history. But judging from the last 150 years, most people on this board feel that this will be another deceitful whitewash job. (example: 2008 Joseph Smith Priesthood study manual). How could it be different? The COB knows that if an unbiased version was ever endorsed by an official church site, membership would plummet. But I think you know this already.
Sethbag wrote: As such, faithful LDS writing books will have filter them through the "what will the Church Historian's Press editorial staff accept" filter, and thus the church itself will have a hand in determining what gets published that faithful members will actually read, and what doesn't.
In that vein, Could this be a response to Bushmans antics?
And crawling on the planet's face Some insects called the human race Lost in time And lost in space...and meaning
1) Is this going to be strictly controlled by the Church or have some autonomy (loosely speaking)?
2) Are they going to print just the documents are they going to do commentaries/analysis (of the mentioned Joseph Smith papers?
---2A) If so, will it be purely apologist commentators or will there be critics involved?
A real professional peer review process would be nice.
I'm sure they'll use the same model of professionalism made famous by "FAIR">:P
"Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded."-charity 3/7/07
I agree with sethbag - regardless of what eventually is shared or not, it will be the place to go for approved history. That's the first step in controlling this escalating mess, largely created by the internet.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
"Project editor Ronald Esplin says the Smith works will provide a greater opportunity for historians and will lift the overall standards for Mormon historical scholarship"
The Church deciding which papers to print and which to hide?
as Coggins7 would say "Move along, nothing to see here...